Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Looking forward to next Thursday’s locals – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 3 in General
imageLooking forward to next Thursday’s locals – politicalbetting.com

Last night Smarkets held an event to look at next week’s local elections. The areas that are having them are in colour in the Wikipedia map above. I found it a weird experience because where I live like in most parts of England there are not elections next week and it is harder to share the excitement.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Foist, like Liz Truss will be on the tory membership.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    edited April 28
    First?

    Edit. Beaten again. Damn. Not going to invest in any lottery tickets today.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,839
    edited April 28
    Yikes, N Yorks (and the new combined council area) is huge! I live here and I hadn't fully realised the extent.

    It will be interesting to see how things work over such a wide area. Having lived under a couple of the to-be-abolished district councils, there are big differences in e.g. waste and recycling policies (afterall, that's all we care about regarding local councils, right? :wink: ). One for all makes sense, as long as it's the best, rather than the worst.

    Edit: Donkey in blue rosette country, of course. We only have Con, Lab and one Green candidate, for two seats.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148
    Tony Travers' prediction seems to be in the right ballpark.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,371
    About 8th.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595
    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout.
    Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.

    There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.
  • Mr. Roberts, if that's our position why aren't we giving more offensive gear? If we're giving planes already why did Truss call for the West to do so?

    It is our position and we are sending armaments as are the Americans, Eastern Europeans and others and the UK has led on this since the beginning.

    Why call for the West to do so? Because we aren't the only nation in the West and where the UK has led the rest of the West has followed for much of the year. If the UK wants the West, including the UK, to send planes to Ukraine then whose job is it to lead the call on that if not either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary?
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    edited April 28
    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    This guy does:
    https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-28/not-naming-names-but-it-was-liz-truss-minister-blamed-for-putin-nuclear-move
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114
    edited April 28
    DavidL said:

    I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout.
    Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.

    There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.

    At least south of Forth we got leaflets for SNP, Labour and The Party Formerly Known as Ruth Davidson Says No - the latter actually has Conservative in non-electron microscope sized writing, quite revolutionary. I don't recall any LD ones, though we do have a LD standing in our area.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595
    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    If tory MPs have any sense they will ensure Liz Truss doesn't make the final two, thus depriving the tory MumsNet members the opportunity of making an epic error.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    This guy does:
    https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-28/not-naming-names-but-it-was-liz-truss-minister-blamed-for-putin-nuclear-move
    Which was a great outcome, we can all agree. Pushing the nuclear clock 5 minutes closer to midnight for no gain whatever. Go Liz.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,353
    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    This guy does:
    https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-28/not-naming-names-but-it-was-liz-truss-minister-blamed-for-putin-nuclear-move
    Which was a great outcome, we can all agree. Pushing the nuclear clock 5 minutes closer to midnight for no gain whatever. Go Liz.
    We can debate the extent to which this was actually Truss' "fault", but you can't have it both ways: either she's an irrelevancy or a menace; she can't possibly be both.
    Oh, I think she could.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,483
    Johnson really is unfit for high office. Those Conservative members who voted for him need to hang their heads in shame

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-by-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-in-poland/ar-AAWEPjk?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=ce679f53ac1e4be4b1bdd0b1d27250d9
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    This guy does:
    https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-28/not-naming-names-but-it-was-liz-truss-minister-blamed-for-putin-nuclear-move
    Which was a great outcome, we can all agree. Pushing the nuclear clock 5 minutes closer to midnight for no gain whatever. Go Liz.
    We can debate the extent to which this was actually Truss' "fault", but you can't have it both ways: either she's an irrelevancy or a menace; she can't possibly be both.
    She is both. She riles Moscow and is ignored by everybody else.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015
    edited April 28
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    "or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage" - their work has been extended and analysed rather substantially since then.

    "100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk." - his work has been, again, extended and peer reviewed. Also tested for practicality.

    image
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    Ben Stokes has been appointed the New England Test Cricket captain.

    Leading from the front; I really don't see hime as a tactician.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    There are clearly some competent people in the Conservative parliamentary party covering the party's political spectrum.

    Some potential leaders should be feared by Labour.

    Liz Truss isn't one of them.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    You're being sarcastic but yes I actually agree we can't forever be bound to those. The scientific principle means that any science of the past can be challenged, if the evidence comes out that something Einstein thought was wrong (as it has with some Newton FYI) then yes we can't be bound to the thinking of 'the Jewish post office clerk'.

    Philosophy has evolved over the millenia and isn't still bound by Athenian principles.

    And don't get me started on religion. No we shouldn't be bound to that either.

    But I have to go so if you want a battle of aphorisms then I will leave you with this one: “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” - Edmund Burke

    Commonly misquoted as “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

    Britain is seeking the defeat of Russia and a Ukrainian victory. Any utterances by Boris or Truss must be seen with that objective in mind. If you'd prefer a Russian victory then that can be your preference, but that isn't policy.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,483
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Gaining territory isn't much good if the cost is completely disproportionate to the gain.

    One could after all, have looked at a map of the Eastern front in August 1943, and drawn the wrong conclusion, based upon who had made the greatest territorial gain.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    edited April 28
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
  • theProletheProle Posts: 666

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,801

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
    Especially Labour's Brexit Secretary
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    This also goes some way to explaining German reluctance.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519595000148938762
    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

    "On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.
    https://spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-laut-christine-lambrecht-nur-150-schuetzenpanzer-puma-angeblich-einsatzbereit-a-5614855e-80f3-4160-9727-933d62b1261e
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
    It's quite impressive the way Starmer has turned Labour from toxic to eminently electable in c. 2 years. And as someone pointed out on here, he's a fundamentally decent person.

    But therein lies the warning for Labour and the carrot for the Conservatives. With a new leader and a honeymoon period, and with a decent and honest person at the helm they could purge the toxicity, and still go on to do well at the General Election. Especially if they go big on the international dimension to the crises we have gone through and are still doing.

    My forecasts on the next election being a disaster for the tories are all based around them keeping Boris. If they ditch him all bets are off.

    Ben Wallace worries me. I loathe his politics but he's good.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
    The aims of the war are up to the Ukranians. Whatever they decide they want and need, other countries should be willing to supply.

    The sanctions against Russia, on the other hand, are entirely in the hands of those who imposed them. If the West collectively decide that the sanctions remain while Putin leads Russia, and Russia holds Crimea and Donbass, then they’ll stay in place until the troops withdraw from that Ukranian territory and have a new President elected fairly.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    Nigelb said:

    This also goes some way to explaining German reluctance.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519595000148938762
    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

    "On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.
    https://spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-laut-christine-lambrecht-nur-150-schuetzenpanzer-puma-angeblich-einsatzbereit-a-5614855e-80f3-4160-9727-933d62b1261e

    UVDL - the gift that keeps on giving.
    How much better are the UK's ratios?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 28
    Right, House of Maxwell next.

    I love having a lazy day off!
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Ben Stokes has been appointed the New England Test Cricket captain.

    Leading from the front; I really don't see hime as a tactician.

    The captain has so much support these days that I'm not sure how much of a tactician they need to be - so much of the plan (and changes to the plan) comes from the dressing room.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    This also goes some way to explaining German reluctance.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519595000148938762
    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

    "On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.
    https://spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-laut-christine-lambrecht-nur-150-schuetzenpanzer-puma-angeblich-einsatzbereit-a-5614855e-80f3-4160-9727-933d62b1261e

    UVDL - the gift that keeps on giving.
    How much better are the UK's ratios?
    IIRC the artillery is in a shit state. The RAF is fairly good (also IIRC)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,252
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
    Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
    The aims of the war are up to the Ukranians. Whatever they decide they want and need, other countries should be willing to supply.
    Unless it's a No Fly Zone in which case we have said they can't have it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,884
    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Anyone can produce a list of non binding authorities. The tricky bit is the discussion of what does bind your conscience, and why.

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,483
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
    It's quite impressive the way Starmer has turned Labour from toxic to eminently electable in c. 2 years. And as someone pointed out on here, he's a fundamentally decent person.

    But therein lies the warning for Labour and the carrot for the Conservatives. With a new leader and a honeymoon period, and with a decent and honest person at the helm they could purge the toxicity, and still go on to do well at the General Election. Especially if they go big on the international dimension to the crises we have gone through and are still doing.

    My forecasts on the next election being a disaster for the tories are all based around them keeping Boris. If they ditch him all bets are off.

    Ben Wallace worries me. I loathe his politics but he's good.
    I agree with your analysis regarding the change if the Tories ditch The Clown. As I am instinctively Conservative I would be happy to see the return of a Conservative government, as this bunch of populist fools (with a few notable exceptions) definitely don't deserve that description.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    Nigelb said:

    This also goes some way to explaining German reluctance.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519595000148938762
    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

    "On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.
    https://spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-laut-christine-lambrecht-nur-150-schuetzenpanzer-puma-angeblich-einsatzbereit-a-5614855e-80f3-4160-9727-933d62b1261e

    While Russia is a particularly good example of the phenomenon, every military has issues with serviceability of vehicles and equipment.

    It’s generally made in small volumes of bespoke components, and much less reliable than commercial equipment for non-mil use. Over time, the expensive spares run out and kit gets cannibalised. Politically speaking, getting a load of spare parts for existing kit just isn’t as sexy as spending the money on nice new shiny stuff.

    Russia has the added problem of the cash ending up buying nice dachas in Sochi, rather than the equipment for which it was intended. Western governments generally pay the asking price from the vendor, while the politicians and generals are looked after later with consultancy contracts.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,080

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
    Especially Labour's Brexit Secretary
    Who are you referring to?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    algarkirk said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Anyone can produce a list of non binding authorities. The tricky bit is the discussion of what does bind your conscience, and why.

    Yes, the suggestion I was combatting is that some authorities and not others become time barred.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,252
    On topic, yes, I saw the Twitter feed on the Smarkets event and it's very London-focused, as will be the 'national' media's coverage.

    It's a shame that not a single mention seems to have been made of the S Yorks mayoral election, which is the biggest in the country in this round - four times the size of Croydon, for example - and where our internal polling has the Tories running third.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,483

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
    Especially Labour's Brexit Secretary
    You just demonstrating absurd partisanship. I am an ex-Conservative Party activist, and don't particularly want to see a Labour government, but I do want to see the back of the Fat Clown. But to slag off Starmer just demonstrates that you are unable to see talent in people who's political view doesn't match your own, which is just plain blinkered and silly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
    Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
    Good luck in your campaign!
  • .

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
    Oh really? So all that land North of Kyiv that Russia were claiming they were occupying with their convoy heading to Kyiv - are they still occupying that?

    Putinists like you might be wanting to think that Ukraine is losing the war but reality is something different.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,080

    On topic, yes, I saw the Twitter feed on the Smarkets event and it's very London-focused, as will be the 'national' media's coverage.

    It's a shame that not a single mention seems to have been made of the S Yorks mayoral election, which is the biggest in the country in this round - four times the size of Croydon, for example - and where our internal polling has the Tories running third.

    Good luck in the by election David.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595
    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,630
    DavidL said:

    I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout.
    Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.

    There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.

    How many people who have actually been out on doorsteps have you been getting your feedback from?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,146
    Nigelb said:

    This also goes some way to explaining German reluctance.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519595000148938762
    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

    "On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.
    https://spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-laut-christine-lambrecht-nur-150-schuetzenpanzer-puma-angeblich-einsatzbereit-a-5614855e-80f3-4160-9727-933d62b1261e

    Shockingly the person who oversaw the atrophy of German defence capability is now EU president. Shambles doesn't cover it.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited April 28

    On topic, yes, I saw the Twitter feed on the Smarkets event and it's very London-focused, as will be the 'national' media's coverage.

    It's a shame that not a single mention seems to have been made of the S Yorks mayoral election, which is the biggest in the country in this round - four times the size of Croydon, for example - and where our internal polling has the Tories running third.

    Ah, I dunno. Nominate a man to stand for parliament and he starts promoting "internal polling"... :)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638

    Ben Stokes has been appointed the New England Test Cricket captain.

    Leading from the front; I really don't see hime as a tactician.

    I see him bowling himself into the deck even more than he does already. But who else was there?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,665
    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    This guy does:
    https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-28/not-naming-names-but-it-was-liz-truss-minister-blamed-for-putin-nuclear-move
    Which was a great outcome, we can all agree. Pushing the nuclear clock 5 minutes closer to midnight for no gain whatever. Go Liz.
    That article doesn't state what Truss says that is apparently so unacceptable. What was it?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,252

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
    In the sense that Russia is occupying Ukraine and not the other way round, yes. But that's not how wars are won and lost. The way in which Russia is losing the war - attrition of manpower, equipment and morale - is more important.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
    Yes, it should involve retaking Crimea, if possible. This may be the only chance for Ukraine to do it; certainly it may be the best one.
    Good luck in your campaign!
    Best instance of someone replying to the wrong post, ever.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 1,708

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
    I'm not sure that's a useful measure though. Ukraine were losing the war "quite badly" by your measure as Kyiv was heading towards encirclement, then, as a result of the "different way" in which Russia was losing the war, they dramatically reversed all that.

    The amount and type of territory occupied and/or advanced through matters terribly to those who are occupied, and is one factor in the progress of the war, but it is only one.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 3,839

    Ben Stokes has been appointed the New England Test Cricket captain.

    Leading from the front; I really don't see hime as a tactician.

    I didn't even know New England had a team :wink:

    Agree though. Inspiring, quite possibly. Maybe not a great tactician, but perhaps nowadays that's less important if he has a good team around him.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,419
    edited April 28

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    But how exactly is it 'working' for Britain - avowedly what British foreign policy is actually supposed to be for? Your lauding of the success of our foreign policy is based upon the fact that we are successfully antagonising Russia - it is based on the assumption that that acheivement alone somehow represents success. The actual material outcome for Britain is that gas prices are through the roof, we are spending vast amounts sending weapons to Ukraine, key British companies have been forced to lop parts of themselves off, Russian money has gone to Dubai, and we have a new Cold War. That doesn't feel very successful to me.

    Yes, of course there is an ethical dimension, but given that we are hand in glove with the Saudis, which is a vastly more repressive and authoritarian regime than Russia, meddles militarily with its neighbours (albeit through proxies), sponsors terror, and exports a poisonous brand of Islam, the moral argument seems dubious.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    Sean_F said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Gaining territory isn't much good if the cost is completely disproportionate to the gain.

    One could after all, have looked at a map of the Eastern front in August 1943, and drawn the wrong conclusion, based upon who had made the greatest territorial gain.
    At least you concede the awkward fact that Russia has gained quite a bit of territory.

    I don't know what the future of the war holds, and sometimes there are indeed massive reversals.

    However, on current progress, my guess would be Russia gradually takes most of the south and east over the next six months.

    Putin now has 90 per cent of Luhansk, 60 per cent of Donetsk and he has a land bridge to Crimea. So, in terms of his stated aims, he is nearly there.

    Of course, his stated aims may not be his true aims. He may want more.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    edited April 28

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
    Russia has been losing territory since the first couple of weeks of the war. They hold more now than at the start, but the direction of travel is against them.

    There’s little progress being made in the areas they do control, and they are taking large numbers of losses simply to maintain what they have. They are rapidly running out of trained soldiers and serviceable equipment.

    With yet another few planeloads and trainloads of Western weapons heading across the border from Poland, Ukraine has pretty much unlimited supplies of arms and a considerable army on which to call.

    The future looks considerable better for the Ukranian army, than for the Russian army, who are struggling to hold the territory they have gained.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,665
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
    Why would we unambiguously state our war aims? Why do you want us to tell the enemy?

    For example, the Russians committing troops to Crimea in a defensive capacity, even if they don't need to, would be good.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,630
    What do you make of this? Counterproductive?


  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
    I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.

    Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,596
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    This also goes some way to explaining German reluctance.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519595000148938762
    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht revealed the terrible condition of the German army:

    "On paper, we have 350 Puma infantry fighting vehicles, 150 can be used. Of the 51 Tiger helicopters, only 9 are combat-ready," she said.
    https://spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-laut-christine-lambrecht-nur-150-schuetzenpanzer-puma-angeblich-einsatzbereit-a-5614855e-80f3-4160-9727-933d62b1261e

    UVDL - the gift that keeps on giving.
    How much better are the UK's ratios?
    AAC has 42/67 WAH-64 in the forward fleet. Probably 50% of them are mission capable given historic AH-64 availability.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,715
    mwadams said:

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
    I'm not sure that's a useful measure though. Ukraine were losing the war "quite badly" by your measure as Kyiv was heading towards encirclement, then, as a result of the "different way" in which Russia was losing the war, they dramatically reversed all that.

    The amount and type of territory occupied and/or advanced through matters terribly to those who are occupied, and is one factor in the progress of the war, but it is only one.
    What other metric should we use?

    Number of Ukranians who have fled? Fraction of Ukraine territory destroyed (though not captured)?
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
    I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.

    Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
    In your analogy, who do you think is presently getting beaten to a pulp? Russia or Britain?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    This guy does:
    https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-28/not-naming-names-but-it-was-liz-truss-minister-blamed-for-putin-nuclear-move
    Which was a great outcome, we can all agree. Pushing the nuclear clock 5 minutes closer to midnight for no gain whatever. Go Liz.
    That article doesn't state what Truss says that is apparently so unacceptable. What was it?
    That we would tacitly encourage UK citizens to travel to Ukraine to fight.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 28

    DavidL said:

    I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout.
    Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.

    There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.

    How many people who have actually been out on doorsteps have you been getting your feedback from?
    Have you read this? It suggests DavidL may be correct:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/04/26/following-boriss-local-campaign-trail-tory-infatuation-has/

    (Admittedly that's not about Scotland as such.)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,688
    Liz Truss speech is her standard one that she trots out on every set piece occasion. Nexus of assertive freedom loving countries etc. It's as if we are in a neo-con world of 2004 and the Iraq War hasn't started yet. I wouldn't be too concerned about the speech - no-one will pay it any attention.

    I would also comment current UK foreign policy is remarkably unsuccessful. No-one apart from the Australians is engaging with it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,754
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
    It's quite impressive the way Starmer has turned Labour from toxic to eminently electable in c. 2 years. And as someone pointed out on here, he's a fundamentally decent person.

    But therein lies the warning for Labour and the carrot for the Conservatives. With a new leader and a honeymoon period, and with a decent and honest person at the helm they could purge the toxicity, and still go on to do well at the General Election. Especially if they go big on the international dimension to the crises we have gone through and are still doing.

    My forecasts on the next election being a disaster for the tories are all based around them keeping Boris. If they ditch him all bets are off.

    Ben Wallace worries me. I loathe his politics but he's good.
    Kept calling Mishal Husain "Martha" this morning but quite a good interview otherwise.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,252
    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
    I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.

    Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
    But that's not the situation. What's happening is that the village's known dangerous and violent bully is in the act of beating up a weaker neighbour. Calling out for help to support the one being beaten up seems very sensible in that context.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523

    On topic, yes, I saw the Twitter feed on the Smarkets event and it's very London-focused, as will be the 'national' media's coverage.

    It's a shame that not a single mention seems to have been made of the S Yorks mayoral election, which is the biggest in the country in this round - four times the size of Croydon, for example - and where our internal polling has the Tories running third.

    Four times the size of Croydon.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
    In the sense that Russia is occupying Ukraine and not the other way round, yes. But that's not how wars are won and lost. The way in which Russia is losing the war - attrition of manpower, equipment and morale - is more important.
    I'd like that to be true but I don't have a good grasp of what the battle of attrition is looking like; We get to hear about everything Russia is losing but I don't see much about what Ukraine is losing, so I don't really understand how anyone can compare them. Does anyone feel like they have good information on this?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,630
    I assume Welsh Labour are putting out a leaflet blaming “Labour/Tory tariffs”?


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,148
    edited April 28

    Sean_F said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the area of territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Gaining territory isn't much good if the cost is completely disproportionate to the gain.

    One could after all, have looked at a map of the Eastern front in August 1943, and drawn the wrong conclusion, based upon who had made the greatest territorial gain.
    At least you concede the awkward fact that Russia has gained quite a bit of territory.

    I don't know what the future of the war holds, and sometimes there are indeed massive reversals.

    However, on current progress, my guess would be Russia gradually takes most of the south and east over the next six months.

    Putin now has 90 per cent of Luhansk, 60 per cent of Donetsk and he has a land bridge to Crimea. So, in terms of his stated aims, he is nearly there.

    Of course, his stated aims may not be his true aims. He may want more.
    To take other examples, Germany in August 1918 had a fair chunk of Northern France, and most of Belgium. France had a fair chunk of Spain in June 1813. Simply having more territory than you started with doesn't mean a lot if the tide is running against you.

    Russia hold less territory than it held a month ago, and has taken very big losses of men and equipment in the process.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    If she had been out of line then Blinken or someone else would have nuanced the comments
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638

    DavidL said:

    I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout.
    Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.

    There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.

    How many people who have actually been out on doorsteps have you been getting your feedback from?
    Two, both in Edinburgh, no one locally. So its a pretty small sample I admit
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638

    What do you make of this? Counterproductive?


    It's a pretty big issue in Glasgow I understand.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    You think anyone pays any attention to the shouty utterances of Fizzy Liz "our Baltic allies across the Black Sea", "we will never recognise Russia’s sovereignty of Rostov and Voronezh" Truss?
    Yes, absolutely 100% I do.

    If you don't, you're in denial.
    No I think you're living in a delusional world there I'm afraid.

    Liz Truss is a joke. Completely out of her depth. Just look again at that bizarre cheese speech and you will realise what a hopeless leader she would be.

    In your desperation to replace Boris for goodness sake don't over-promote someone inept.
    Truss is a clown, an embarrasment to Britain on the national stage.

    She is out of her depth. It is hard to see many in either the govt or opposition who would be comfortable with this brief or make a good fist of it at the moment.
    Clowns tend to appoint other minor clowns. Johnson has turned the Tory Party into a circus, just like Corbyn previously did with Labour.
    Especially Labour's Brexit Secretary
    You just demonstrating absurd partisanship. I am an ex-Conservative Party activist, and don't particularly want to see a Labour government, but I do want to see the back of the Fat Clown. But to slag off Starmer just demonstrates that you are unable to see talent in people who's political view doesn't match your own, which is just plain blinkered and silly.
    I really like this post.

    I've been blinkered by my loathing of Boris Johnson into failing to see the talent and decency that still exists in the Conservative Party. Those people need to stand up now. It's not only for them but for the future of our politics and country.

    We really cannot go on like this for another two years.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,569
    This doesn't sound good.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-61256972

    Does this mean another by-election in the offing?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Selebian said:

    Ben Stokes has been appointed the New England Test Cricket captain.

    Leading from the front; I really don't see hime as a tactician.

    I didn't even know New England had a team :wink:

    Agree though. Inspiring, quite possibly. Maybe not a great tactician, but perhaps nowadays that's less important if he has a good team around him.
    Now that is funny.

    Apart from the team's inability to bat, to bowl on anything other than a green wicket and to take catches he will be fine.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    On topic, yes, I saw the Twitter feed on the Smarkets event and it's very London-focused, as will be the 'national' media's coverage.

    It's a shame that not a single mention seems to have been made of the S Yorks mayoral election, which is the biggest in the country in this round - four times the size of Croydon, for example - and where our internal polling has the Tories running third.

    Four times the size of Croydon.
    Biggest borough in Greater London

    Also, in Michael Moorcock there's a Baron Meliadus of Kroiden, Grand Constable of the Order of the Wolf., First Chieftain of the Armies of Granbretan, which I always thought rather cool
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,630
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I live in Angus which is a bit of a swing council with the SNP at or just under a majority with the Tories the main opposition. The lack of activity has been startling. We have had an SNP leaflet (one) and, well, that's about it. A serious lack of energy and effort by all concerned which is likely to have an effect on turnout.
    Not sure that we are going to be able to tell much, if anything from this.

    There seems to be slightly more activity in Edinburgh. From those who have been out on the doorstep the Tories may be in for a hiding for reasons that have very little to do with the poor Councillors.

    How many people who have actually been out on doorsteps have you been getting your feedback from?
    Two, both in Edinburgh, no one locally. So its a pretty small sample I admit
    Did you like my self-restraint? I was sorely tempted to exploit your poor Tory councillors open goal 😉
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,595
    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
    I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.

    Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
    Oh I see; because your guiding principle is "we must treat Putin like a nuclear warhead that might go off at any moment, because, well, he is". Fair enough. I disagree with that, hence also with your assessment of Truss, and hence also that the Roosevelt Big Stick (or, more precisely, Speaking Softly) is particularly applicable to this situation.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208

    theProle said:

    FPT

    Dura_Ace said:

    nico679 said:

    As much as we want Russia pushed out of all Ukraine it’s not going to happen . No way will Putin accept anything less than total control of those eastern breakaways aswell as the land bridge to Crimea .

    All efforts should be in protecting Odessa and that coastal fringe to the south west and securing the rest of Ukraine with more ability to stop missile attacks .

    This might sound defeatist but seems IMO to be the reality of the situation.

    The idea that Ukraine/NATO are going to push Russia back to the 2014 border and Putin will just say, "LOL, k thx." is both risible and dangerous.
    It isn't up to Putin. If he loses the war, he loses it. He's our enemy not our ally.

    By 2014 border you mean Russia's own border. Yes its entirely appropriate for Ukraine to push Russia back to their own border, with our aid. Indeed if Putin doesn't then surrender and end his war, it'd be appropriate for Ukraine if they so chose to push into Russia itself, with our support, until Russia surrenders. Lets hope it doesn't come to that.
    Make the following graph. Plot the territory in Ukraine under Russian occupation as a function of time.

    This graph has a gradient that is positive. Slowly, more and more Ukraine lands are being occupied.

    In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just Crimea and 20 % or so of Donetsk and Luhansk – has grown to perhaps three or four times the size.

    If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another six months the entire south/east will be in ruins & under Russian occupation.
    Doesn't that rather assume your reducing the graph to a single straight line?

    They obviously currently occupy more than they started with. I think they also occupy less than they did a month ago.

    In a similar way, imagine a graph of my (imaginary) personal finances. At birth, I didn't have a penny to my name, and no debt either. Now, aged 35, I have a mortgage debt of ten times what I've got in cash in the bank... lets say a net -£70k. It doesn't mean that projecting forward from those two points to myself aged 70, I will by then have a debt of £140k.
    A much more relevant data point than my status at birth might be that 10 years ago, I had a mortgage debt of £100k... so in ten years, I've paid off £30k... projecting that forward would mean that at 70, I'd have +£5k in the bank... still almost certainly wildly inaccurate, but now at least the direction of travel is correct.

    If one is going to try and project Russian progress, the start of the invasion isn't a terribly helpful data point - to assess current progress, measuring territory occupied since they pulled back from their northern attack is probably more relevant.

    There is an instantaneous gradient, whether straight line or not.

    I probably would not cherry pick the data, but plot everything since the annexation of Crimea. Then run a window function if I wanted to look on certain timescales. Remember, the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    Ukraine is losing this war, territorially. It is true that Russia is losing the war as well, but in a different way.
    In the sense that Russia is occupying Ukraine and not the other way round, yes. But that's not how wars are won and lost. The way in which Russia is losing the war - attrition of manpower, equipment and morale - is more important.
    I'd like that to be true but I don't have a good grasp of what the battle of attrition is looking like; We get to hear about everything Russia is losing but I don't see much about what Ukraine is losing, so I don't really understand how anyone can compare them. Does anyone feel like they have good information on this?
    By most accounts, Ukraine has more tanks now than when the war started, thanks to all the Russian ones they have captured.

    Ukraine is losing men and equipment, but not at the same rate as the enemy. Most of the fighting has been at a distance for them, with shoulder-launched missiles aimed at Russian vehicles.

    The civilian casualties, sadly, are well into the tens of thousands, and there is significant damage to property and infrastructure.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
    I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.

    Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
    But that's not the situation. What's happening is that the village's known dangerous and violent bully is in the act of beating up a weaker neighbour. Calling out for help to support the one being beaten up seems very sensible in that context.
    It's the taunting vs usefully helping ratio which she is getting wrong. We all make stupid mistakes, but the black sea/baltic, deny Russia its own territory, illegally send our own civilians to fight all in the same month, are noticed here and internationally. An unserious person in serious times.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    Nigelb said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    Speaking softly was appropriate pre-war.

    Right now speaking firmly and unambiguously has been successful British policy all year long, since before any Russian troops went into Ukraine.

    And what's more is it is working. It has shamed Germany into shutting down Nordstream II, it has shamed them this week into agreeing to send heavy armaments into Ukraine after they'd been messing around.

    Speaking softly was for the past. Speaking firmly, exercising our big stick and diplomatically ensuring those who are meant to be our allies send their sticks however big to Ukraine is the order of the day now.
    Except it's not unambiguous.
    What are the war aims - do they include retaking Crimea, for example ?
    We've never made anything like that clear, still less the rest of the NATO coalition supplying Ukraine. And as some have pointed out, those decisions are far more within the ambit of the US and Ukraine itself - who are supplying the bulk of the weapons, and all of those doing the dying.

    'Russia should be seen to lose the war' is fine as a principle (and I don't disagree), but it's not a policy.

    Conducting that debate should be within cabinet, and with our allies. To do so by speeches like those just made by Truss is little more than grandstanding.
    I guess you haven’t been reading my posts through this whole mess.

    The price of Putin’s adventurism has been clear: the reestablishment of the pre-2014 borders. Liz is just stating OTAN policy. I’m not close enough to the inner circle to know whether that was explicitly authorised and agreed, but the lack of denials suggest that it was.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,569
    edited April 28
    DavidL said:

    What do you make of this? Counterproductive?


    It's a pretty big issue in Glasgow I understand.
    Rubbish is a pretty big issue in many areas. It certainly is around my way.

    During the pandemic the Council introduced a booking scheme at the local tip, which was perfectly sensible. It's keeping it though, which isn't. The scheme suits the Council (cost-saving) and the site managers (profits and convenience) but it is bad for the local residence. It's awkward and inconvenient. It discourages responsible disposal of waste and encourages fly-tipping.

    It is very much a Council issue and the type of thing that can easily impact results in local elections.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
    I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.

    Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
    In your analogy, who do you think is presently getting beaten to a pulp? Russia or Britain?
    The first NATO country to have a nuke detonate in its airspace
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    edited April 28
    The independent expert panel has recommended labour mp Liam Byrne be suspended from the HOC for two days for bullying and harassment
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Endillion said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mr. Z, must share your contempt for Truss.

    If she's speaking the UK's official position that's fine. But the Foreign Secretary can't spout her own views for attention on such a serious matter. It's contemptible.

    It really isn't: "speak softly and carry a big stick." If it is our policy it is important not to shout and make a song and dance about it to troll Putin, or rather to enhance your chances at the leadership with the necessary side effect of trolling Putin.
    I don't think we can be bound forever to practice policy based on aphorisms uttered by a foreign politician who's been dead for over a century.
    Let alone practise morality based on the maunderings of some religious nutter in Palestine who got nailed to a bit of wood two millennia back, or a handful of Athenian poshboys who had been pushing up the daisies for 3 or 4 centuries by that stage, or interpret the physical universe by looking at a 100 year old non-peer-reviewed scribble by a Jewish patent office clerk.
    Yes, those are all exactly the same thing. Well done.
    OK, here is one thing: ""Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."

    Here is another: "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

    Both on the face of it universal advice about human interactions and relationships. The first is 3 or 4 thousand years old (Proverbs where it comes from probably a shade under 3,000, but with possibly much much older Egyptian sources) and still current and good advice, as "pride goes before a fall". The second looks to me equally universal, non-time-specific good advice, but apparently is past its sell by date in about a century. Why?
    I wouldn't say it's past its sell by date - although it should be viewed in the context that the world has changed substantially in the last century, and what worked in a geopolitical sense then be less applicable now. Plus, our relationship with Russia today is not directly translatable to the USA's with the rest of the world a hundred years ago.

    My point was more that it's advice, not universally accepted dogma - it seems unfair to criticise Truss specifically for not following it. By all means, continue to criticise her for results if she's not getting them.
    I was working backwards from She is making a complete arse of herself to What principle is she infringing, not running a rule over her to see whether she conformed.

    Say I live in a village which has a known dangerous and violent bully. If I arbitrarily walk up to the bully and say "You are a dickless wanker and your mother smells of wee" and get beaten to a pulp, my fellow villagers are quite likely to think *both* that he shouldn't have done that and the village needs a strategy to deal with him, *and* that I am a complete twat.
    In your analogy, who do you think is presently getting beaten to a pulp? Russia or Britain?
    The first NATO country to have a nuke detonate in its airspace
    So none then, because that hasn't happened.

    You can want Russia to win because you're scared of Mad Vlad's nukes, but I'm glad then that you're not in Truss's shoes.
This discussion has been closed.